The PML (N) has raised an outcry over a statement of the American ambassador; but it is a hilariously laughable outcry. The other day, the envoy had publicly stated that the way the country was run in the past civilian rules was no democracy. So enraged were the party’s two lights that they summoned a press conference where they denounced him for his remarks and asked him not to behave like a viceroy. Yes, he should not; he has no business to poke his nose in our domestic affairs. But, may we ask the two honourable personages have they themselves not been inviting in these very times the foreigners to intervene in our internal affairs and act as viceroys? Can they give count of the number of times the ARD, whose constituent their party is, raked up our internal matters on the corridors of the Commonwealth and the European Parliament through letters, petitions and what not and through representations to their visiting officials?
Indeed, don’t they greet the Commonwealth secretary general every time he lands in this country as a viceroy, trooping like servile serfs into his royal court with hands folded and bouquets of smiles to shower sheepishly on his grim face? Could there be a greater contemptible obeisance? Could there be a more disgraceful servility? And what for? What else, if not to wash our dirty linens on his dhobi ghat? And, pray, what would have been their reaction, had the American envoy eulogised as true democracy the era when their political party played the power musical chairs with its mainstream rival that now sits with it in the ARD as chums? Wouldn’t have that transported the two dignitaries into a binge of joy and rejoicing, propelling them on to sing paeans of the envoy and his and his country’s commitment to democracy?
At their press conference, both asked the envoy to apologise from the people of Pakistan for his remarks. Yes, he must. No diplomatic protocol permits to a foreign envoy making public comments on his host country’s domestic affairs. But what about the two enraged politicos, their colleagues and allies themselves? Don’t they, too, have to apologise to their nation for degrading it on alien soils with their own dirty letters, petitions and representations? In this page, we have been pleading that we must keep our domestic affairs to ourselves and sort them out ourselves, and not try to get others involved as the aliens would avail it as an opportunity to grind their own axes. All over the world, respectable nations behave like this. They rather resent others’ interference in their internal issues. The attempts of our political elite to entice foreign involvement shows only how politically immature and intellectually bankrupt it is. Let this elite note that the common citizens abhor this despicable propensity of its unspeakably.
But what the apologists are loath to speak out is that the country’s political elite itself is no lesser undemocratic by temperament. After all, who had prevented the civilian rulers from permitting freedom of expression and freedom to media? Who had stopped them from allowing political activities to their rivals? Who had kept them from tolerating political dissent and pluralism and adhering to rule of law? Who had stood in their way of strengthening the state institutions, cultivating democratic norms and building democratic traditions? Who had goaded them on to encroach on the judiciary’s turf, get into unseemly tiffs with it and set party goons and hirelings on the Supreme Court judges? Not even the most gullible would be taken in by the apologists’ flimsy defence. And not even an idiot would buy the envoy’s verdict either, that democracy is currently running on the right track. Where in a democracy do they have an uniformed president? And where does it happen in a democracy, as is happening here, that a parliament comprising the nation’s elected representatives is reduced into a more or less debating society, and not made the clearinghouse of all state policies as is the US Congress? Can President Bush launch into major actions without the Congress consent?

Vote for new Iraq

IT IS hard to overstate the importance of Iraq vote that is taking place even as we write this. This is one opportunity that has the potential to end the bloody chaos of the past couple of years and put Iraq back on the track. This vote could help the Iraqis build a new country, and a democratic state that is at peace with itself and offers equal opportunity, peace and justice to all of its people. Of course, this is not the first time that Iraqis are exercising their democratic right since Saddam Hussein was brought down. However, the first election that was held in January had largely been a stage-managed affair with the Sunni population staying away from the vote. Ditto the referendum on the contentious constitution held in October. Not surprisingly, the boycott of earlier votes by the Sunni community helped the Shia parties and militias to gain excessive control of the interim government, security forces and other key institutions of the country.
The Sunnis, already marginalised, have paid a price for staying off the earlier polls and shutting themselves out of the decision making process. Recent incidents of persecution of the Sunnis by some government agencies and security forces, infiltrated by Shia militias, has demonstrated to the Sunnis the importance of involving themselves in the political process. No wonder the Sunnis have reportedly turned up in large numbers to vote in this election apparently determined to play their role in mapping out new Iraq.
This is certainly a positive development considering the critical importance of this vote. While the January vote and constitution referendum were of interim nature, this election is going to elect the country’s first truly independent parliament and government for the next four years. The government and parliament that today’s poll will throw up will play a key role in determining the shape and direction of new Iraq. Of course, putting up a new dispensation in Baghdad is not going to be easy what with so many parties and groups in the poll fray — 7,655 candidates from 307 political parties vying for 275 seats. However, a government that is more democratic in nature than the present one and represents all sections of Iraqi society — Shia, Sunni, Kurds and others — whenever it takes shape can hopefully have the mandate and ability to restore peace and order in the country. The withdrawal of the US-led coalition is also crucially linked to the stability and success of the incoming government. The US will remain mired in Iraq as long as a new and representative Iraqi leadership is not ready to take over. That is why this election is so crucial to the country’s future. This is truly the vote for a new Iraq.

—Khaleej Times